Friday, July 1, 2011

NATO and Libya: 100 Days, but any progress? Analysis

Misguided air strikes, civilian casualties, a desperate Libyan ruler still fighting for power with an International Criminal Court indictment issued against him. These are some of the highlights that color the 100 days since NATO began air strikes against Muammar Qaddafi’s forces.

In February, Colonel Qaddafi swore to “fight until his last drop of blood” for his role as leader amidst mass protests calling for his removal. An element of what has become known as the Arab Spring, these protests called for political freedom and economic opportunities to be encouraged by their non-traditional government.


On Thursday, the leader’s daughter, Aicha Qaddafi said, that to end the spilling of Libyan blood, “We are ready to ally ourselves with the devil, with the rebel army” during a French network television interview. This would prove a large step forward if sincere.
Also on Thursday, France admitted to supplying arms to Libyan rebels, propelling the support beyond the agreement in UN Security Council Resolution 1973. France issued statements claiming that the munitions drops were necessary to allow civilians to defend themselves, a step beyond the initial humanitarian food, water and medical supply drops.

To understand the current situation, it is useful to take a look at Mr. Qaddafi’s ruling history.

In his 1975 doctrinal Green Book, which doubles as the country’s constitution, Mr. Qaddafi outlined his beliefs on how a socialist society should be run. Paradoxically, statements such as the following appear to justify his dictatorial status by dissolving all typical government bodies by defining democracy quite uniquely: “No representation of the people—representation is a falsehood. The mere existence of parliaments underlies the absence of the people, for democracy can only exist with the presence of the people and not in the presence of representatives of the people.”

Mr. Qaddafi’s ideology was rooted in convincing his people, often through violent intimidation, that through mere existence that they were being represented in the government. However, that was entirely untrue in his Libya, a nation riddled with corruption and lacking proper institutions.

Another excerpt from his Green Book sheds light on the economic struggle of Libyans: “Labor in return for wages is virtually the same as enslaving a human being.”

Essentially, it appears as though he is defending his right to live lavishly while not wanting to “enslave” others through employment initiatives. “Paradoxical” is just one of the words used by political scientists when describing Mr. Qaddafi’s ruling style.

Responding to Colonel Qaddafi’s violent reaction to protests in mid-February, opposition groups were forced to fight back with limited weapons or training resulting in mass bloodshed and devastation.

Submission following the beginning of the protests does not appear to have been an option in the minds of the Libyan people.

Responding to the devastation, some say because of the massive oil and gas fields in Libya, NATO launched airstrikes targeting Mr. Qaddafi and his allies beginning March 2011. The decision followed the passage of a UN Security Council resolution supporting military action against the leader committing violent acts against his people.

The sentiments caused by NATO’s move to get involved in Libya were two-fold.

First, a leader was/is brutally repressing his people who are calling for freedom and representation – two things that ring close to NATO member countries’ hearts.

Conversely, the question has to be asked as to why NATO forces, the Americans in particular, are delving into another potentially long battle after the hurdles and frustrations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With regards to energy supply disruptions, Europeans faced more energy shocks than did Americans, relying on Libyan light sweet crude to provide significant volumes to its refineries. Although Saudi Arabia increased its production, the unique, slightly higher quality of Libyan light sweet crude meant it was easier to refine into everyday products such as petrol. Europeans have also turned to Russia to supplement the loss for now.

Italy consumed about 32 percent of Europe’s 85 percent supply of Libyan oil exports; Germany percent, Italy, percent. The remainder of Libya’s oil exports travelled east through the Suez canal, comprising 3 percent of Chinese oil imports, amongst others.

In Libya today, it is clear that Mr. Qaddafi will not relinquish his seat of power to the opposition forces. While he could seek safe haven in allied nations, such as North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela, it appears that Mr. Qaddafi will indeed stay and fight until the very last drop of his and his allies’ blood.

That makes NATO’s job now extremely difficult. A few supportive air strikes have turned into what looks like it will be a long- term commitment, a manhunt to “cut the head off the snake.” As long as Mr. Qaddafi is living in Libya, NATO forces must now continue to support the Libyan people. Sending in ground troops has been discussed though is almost entirely impossible given the military obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan of NATO Allies, and American forces in particular.

Not just for the returned oil supply but also for the humanity of the Libyan people, efforts in institution building must be taking place concurrently with the battle for freedom.

The Libyan Interim National Transitional Council (NTC) was established on March 5 in Benghazi by oppositionists to Mr. Qaddafi’s continued rule. The NTC aims to establish peace and security within Libya, avoiding the potential divide of the nation as a means of solving the current crisis.

The Executive Board of the NTC is led by the chairman, Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, a scholar in strategic planning and decision making from the University of Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania). Board members include Vice Chairman, Dr. Ali Al-Issawi, who holds his doctorate in privitization. Both Drs. Jibril and Al-Issawi served in Mr. Qaddafi’s Libyan government, the former as head of the National Economic Development Board from 2007-10, the latter most recently as Libyan Ambassador to India, a post he held until the uprisings.

Fourteen international governments (out of 192 member states of the United Nations), including the UAE, Qatar, Australia, France and Germany, have recognized the official representation of the Libyan people by the TNC. Conspicuously missing from the list is the United States of America.

Following a meeting between Mr. Jibril and US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in May, Mr. Donilon stated that the United States acknowledged the TNC as “a legitimate and credible interlocutor of the Libyan people.” However, the US did not offer full official recognition explaining that the responsibility and ability to fully legitimize Libyan representatives laid in the hands of the Libyan people, not in those of foreign governments.

It is important to note that NATO countries had no explicit role in establishing the TNC; however they have been attempting to mediate negotiations between Mr. Qaddafi’s representatives and the TNC. Until now, there have been no fruits to that labor. But Aicha Qaddafi’s recent statement, cited earlier, may indicate there is some hope to the negotiations.

While oil remains on global minds as they reflect on NATO’s military action in Libya, it is important to look beyond external powers and peer into the significant progress Libyans themselves have made in the face of brutal and merciless attacks from its leader.

Indeed, it is important to support the Libyan people in their struggle though it is also important for NATO and its member countries to have a long, hard look at the past 100 days and reassess whether their contributions truly appear on the greater landscape of progress.

(Mary E. Stonaker is an independent scholar, most recently with the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore.

No comments:

Post a Comment